Franzen gets boarded and the talk isn't about whether it was a penalty it is about whether the refs should have whistled puck dead for an injuried player, and we get a quoted rule about if attacking team has puck, to not blow whistle. Um, first of all, it was a penalty, that demands a whistle when offending team touches puck and isn't there examples where even if attacking team has puck, there are sometimes still whistles for injuries if the puck isn't in the offensive end (they had to take the puck all way up ice after injury).

Second the cross check explanation when he says it wasn't a cross check because Hawks stick rides up guys jersey, so it was just a push not a cross check? WTF?

My late best friend's last name was Willard. His brother was a cop, and of course his nickname was "Rat". Family all played hockey too! His sister was on the 1976 State Championship team from Westland, coached by her dad.

Franzen gets boarded and the talk isn't about whether it was a penalty it is about whether the refs should have whistled puck dead for an injuried player, and we get a quoted rule about if attacking team has puck, to not blow whistle. Um, first of all, it was a penalty, that demands a whistle when offending team touches puck and isn't there examples where even if attacking team has puck, there are sometimes still whistles for injuries if the puck isn't in the offensive end (they had to take the puck all way up ice after injury).

Second the cross check explanation when he says it wasn't a cross check because Hawks stick rides up guys jersey, so it was just a push not a cross check? WTF?

You mean like when they stopped play after Stalberg dove into the boards head first? That's what adds insult to injury for me. What Edzo said is usually the case, but he certainly didn't have any problem with them stopping the play in the first for a Blackhawk that went down...on his own accord none the less.

First, I don't feel like the overall product is "biased" against Detroit. EdZo is probably not a fan of the Wings, and as a human being, that might shine through from time to time. But if think about the perspective of fans of every other team, players like Datsyuk and (previously) Lidstrom are pretty much universally revered by the hockey media - and even rival announcers/bloggers. Datsyuk can make a routine stick check and they'll still be raving about it after he turns the puck right back over.

NBC's real problem is that they have very recognizable media figures (isn't Emrick a HoF voter?) who either are badly overrated at their jobs, or at the very least, aren't a good match for each other. Edzo offers very little insightful commentary. J.R. (another former Hawk) is personally annoying, but his strategy breakdowns in the intermissions are somewhat insightful, even if it's something like figuring out who screwed up an assignment on defense.

Emrick is so polarizing. The people on my Twitter feed who are big sports fans but casually/disinterested hockey fans LOVE the guy. He definitely has his own style and there are times I like his enthusiasm. But compared with someone like Strader, Emrick's ego just won't allow him to actually CALL the game. He talks over plays with narrative about crap that nobody cares about, which is a real shame when the on-ice action is really good.

Same with Pierre. Guy is creepy, obviously, but he has a huge wealth of hockey knowledge that just doesn't need to be shared in the middle of a play. Paired together with Doc's narrative rants, it really detracts from the game.

First, I don't feel like the overall product is "biased" against Detroit. EdZo is probably not a fan of the Wings, and as a human being, that might shine through from time to time. But if think about the perspective of fans of every other team, players like Datsyuk and (previously) Lidstrom are pretty much universally revered by the hockey media - and even rival announcers/bloggers. Datsyuk can make a routine stick check and they'll still be raving about it after he turns the puck right back over.

NBC's real problem is that they have very recognizable media figures (isn't Emrick a HoF voter?) who either are badly overrated at their jobs, or at the very least, aren't a good match for each other. Edzo offers very little insightful commentary. J.R. (another former Hawk) is personally annoying, but his strategy breakdowns in the intermissions are somewhat insightful, even if it's something like figuring out who screwed up an assignment on defense.

Emrick is so polarizing. The people on my Twitter feed who are big sports fans but casually/disinterested hockey fans LOVE the guy. He definitely has his own style and there are times I like his enthusiasm. But compared with someone like Strader, Emrick's ego just won't allow him to actually CALL the game. He talks over plays with narrative about crap that nobody cares about, which is a real shame when the on-ice action is really good.

Same with Pierre. Guy is creepy, obviously, but he has a huge wealth of hockey knowledge that just doesn't need to be shared in the middle of a play. Paired together with Doc's narrative rants, it really detracts from the game.

The problem with Mike Emerick is he got old. In his prime, he was one of the best. But he got old and has been tailoring his style to a more national network based one (read non hockey audience). He and John Davidson used to be one of the best hockey broadcasting tandems. Most of us who remember Dave Strader from the Wings broadcasts are probably a bit biased towards him. I really miss Gary Thorne from ESPN. I thought he was superb.

In regards to Franzen, Olczyk was correct in that if the opposing team had possession, there is no call for an injured player. I think it was pretty obvious Franzen wasn't seriously hurt and was trying to draw the call. He didn't miss a shift. Does anyone else remember Paul Coffey in the 95 Cup Finals? The Wings have had calls go their way and go against them. I haven't had a problem at all with the officiating.

Don't mind JR in the intermission. When he first retired and started broadcasting, I thought I would hate the guy. Sad to say it wasn't from his broadcasting that I first learned more about him. I actually sat next to him on a flight to Phoenix (he lives there, I was headed to work) during the 2009-2010 season when the Wings were really down and we had gotten screwed on a few goal/non-goal calls recently (remember those games against Dallas, anyone?).

We started talking and he said he felt the Wings were down but (in his own words) said he hated seeing them get screwed and felt the league was really trying to push them out - he said let the play determine where they stand and if they miss the playoffs, it should be because of their play. I was shocked. Here was a guy that played his whole career against the Wings and was confirming what I saw with my own eyes but kept telling myself not to believe anything funny was going on. Anyways, we talked a while - turned out it was his 40th birthday and me and a couple of other passengers had a shot with him for his b-day. From that moment on I realized he is good guy and just someone that speaks what he thinks and doesn't really put agendas against anyone.

His reaction on the air after the Hawks won the cup showed who he is. Rest assured, part of him will always root for Chicago, but he gives an honest view. Also, the further he gets from his playing career, I think the more un-biased he becomes.

For the record, I hate Ezo and Pierre. Edzo can't hid his bias enough and Pierre just bugs me (although he does show some hype to a few of the Wings). Can't we get ANYONE besides those two?

"This young man has had a very trying rookie season. What with the litigation, the notoriety, his subsequent deportation to Canada and that country's refusal to accept him? Whhelll, I guess that's more than most 21 year olds could handle."

Aw, Emrick's not so bad. True, he rambles, but I think it's more senility than anythiing else. It's almost sort of endearing in that way. (OK, not really. But still.) And, yeah, he "plays the fool" as a way of "pandering" to non-hardcore hockey fans, but, really, that's not such a bad thing.

"If I were to wish for anything, I should not wish for wealth and power, but for the passionate sense of the potential, for the eye which, ever young and ardent, sees the possible. Pleasure disappoints, possibility never. And what wine is so sparkling, what so fragrant, what so intoxicating, as possibility!" - Kierkegaard

The problem with Mike Emerick is he got old. In his prime, he was one of the best. But he got old and has been tailoring his style to a more national network based one (read non hockey audience). He and John Davidson used to be one of the best hockey broadcasting tandems. Most of us who remember Dave Strader from the Wings broadcasts are probably a bit biased towards him. I really miss Gary Thorne from ESPN. I thought he was superb.

In regards to Franzen, Olczyk was correct in that if the opposing team had possession, there is no call for an injured player. I think it was pretty obvious Franzen wasn't seriously hurt and was trying to draw the call. He didn't miss a shift. Does anyone else remember Paul Coffey in the 95 Cup Finals? The Wings have had calls go their way and go against them. I haven't had a problem at all with the officiating.

So then when Steckel was hurt and the Wings had possession they blew the whistle and stopped play. So what's the difference? So they determined right out there on the ice that Franzen was faking it and Steckel wasn't??? Sure was hard for me to tell.